header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

ARTHROSCOPIC TREATMENT OF CALCIFIED TENDINOPATHY OF THE SHOULDER: SHOULD THE GLENOHUMERAL JOINT BE EXPLORED?



Abstract

Purpose: Arthroscopic treatment of calcified tendinopathy is classically performed in two times: exploration of the glenohumeral joint followed by subacromial arthroscopy to evacuate the calcification. In our experience, glenohumeral arthroscopy has only exceptionally provided a diagnostic element. In addition, the principal complication of this procedure is retractile capsulitis which may be a secondary effect of glenohumeral aggression. We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the effect of systematic exploration of the glenohumeral joint.

Material and methods: Two homogeneous groups of patients were identified. Group 1 included 32 patients who had had glenohumeral arthroscopy then resection of the calcifications using a bursoscope. Group 2 included 32 patients whose treatment was limited to subacromial arthroscopy for resection. The preoperative Constant score (52 in group 1 and 54 in group 2), disease duration (34 and 40 months respectively), and localisation of the calcification were comparable for the two groups. Acromioplasty was not performed in these patients. All were reviewed at minimal follow-up of 6 months for assessment of the Constant score and a radiography study.

Results: At last follow-up the mean Constant score was 70 in group 1; calcifications had disappeared in 84% of the cases and delay to recovery (total pain relief and return to work) was 11 months. There were 4 cases of postoperative capsulitis (12.5%). The mean Constant score was 79 in group 2; calcifications had disappeared in 78% of the cases and delay to recovery was 6.5 weeks (p = 0.0001). There was one case of retractile capsulitis (3%). In group 1, glenohu-meral arthroscopy did not lead to the discovery of specific elements except in two cases where it identified partial tear of the deep aspect of the supraspinatus. Acromioplasty was never performed.

Discussion-Conclusion: Systematic glenohumeral arthros-copy is not warranted in patients undergoing treatment for calcified tendinopathy. The fact that glenohumeral exploration did not disclose any particular element and had no effect on healing and capsulitis rates favours the use of a subacromial approach alone.

The abstracts were prepared by Pr. Jean-Pierre Courpied (General Secretary). Correspondence should be addressed to him at SOFCOT, 56 rue Boissonade, 75014 Paris, France